Effective evaluation is what makes speakers progress quickly. Practice alone is not enough. A topic every couple of weeks and a speech every couple of months will not make you a better speaker unless you get evaluated. Competent, fair evaluations, tailored to the level of experience of the speaker, will drive up the performance of this club and make us all better speakers.

Here's what you should be evaluating and how to do it.

Evaluation is not done by sticking to a formula – you will develop your own style of doing it and it probably won’t be the same as mine – it is a professional skill based on knowledge.

Why and how we evaluate speeches and topics.

The aims are simple:
    To reinforce the speaker’s good points
    To help the speaker recognise and overcome faults
    To encourage the speaker to keep progressing as a speaker

Along the way, the evaluator should be pointing out lessons that we can all learn, problems we all face, and techniques we can all use.  

Every evaluation should include

·   some praise for the good

·   some advice to overcome faults

·   some helpful suggestions for making progress

Tailor the evaluation to the level of experience of the speaker. Newer speakers will inevitably make some mistakes, and they need encouragement and advice more than they need criticism. Speakers with years of experience should be evaluated to higher standards.

An evaluation should not include flattery or personal criticism. So don’t say “John has given us another of his wonderful speeches” even if you think so, and don’t say “Alan seems to have no idea what the timing lights meant ” when what you should have said was “Alan was trying to cover too many points, so he ran a long way over the stated time.”

The evaluation speech is given to the whole audience, not just to the speaker.

The aims do NOT include explaining the contents of the speech to the audience so

·  do not retell it

·  do not tell us whether you agree

·  do not add your own opinions or comments

These aims are easy to understand, but exactly what should the evaluator be listening for, and how should he express what he heard?

Fundamentally, you are trying to assess whether the speech met the requirements of the assignment. You can only do this if you read the assignment in your Guide and especially the evaluation sheet that goes with it. During your evaluation speech, you must say whether the speaker should move on to the next assignment or repeat this one. You might want to say that right at the beginning, or you might leave it until later.

Your evaluation should be built on your analysis of the aspects of the speech

·   Was the subject suitable? You spend a little time on this

·   How was the speech prepared? You spend a little more time on this

·   Was the delivery effective in having an impact on the audience? You spend most of the time on this

A suitable subject fits the assignment, interests the audience, and is likely to be well understood by them. You can comment briefly on this, and should do so analytically (say why). So you cannot just say “This was an appropriate choice of subject”, you should say something like “The speaker chose a good subject for an Audience Rapport speech, because his recent experience of building a shed gave him many opportunities to bring out the humour” On the other hand, you would probably point out that building a shed was not a good choice for a Mean What you Say speech as few people would feel strongly about it.

The preparation of a speech shows up in its structure. You should comment on whether it had a logical sequence, whether the opening was arresting, whether the ending was effective, and whether is was about the right length. And always say why, giving examples from the speech if possible. Unless there was an important fault here, this will not take you long. Faults you should be looking out for are a jumbled or rambling structure that the audience cannot follow, an over-long opening, repetition, or an ending that the audience did not recognise. If you point out such faults, always say what went wrong, and advise how to avoid the problem in future.

Most of the evaluation should cover the delivery of the speech. Here you should be looking out for voice and technique.

·  Was the voice clear and loud enough, so that the audience heard every word?

·  Was the voice monotonous, or did the volume vary to suit the words.

·  Was the speed right, did it vary, were pauses used effectively?

·  Was the choice of words appropriate for the subject of the speech?

·  Was the technique good? Include eye-contact with the audience, stance and gestures, and handling of notes. Look out for distracting mannerisms, like flipping glasses on and off, and for bad habits such as grasping the lectern, plunging hands into pockets, or shuffling notes.

Now let’s just hang on a moment before you plunge in. There seem to be too many points to look for and masses of things you could mention in an evaluation, so I would advise this:

·  Find just two or three things to praise, and say why they were good. Don’t include weak praise: “This was a competent speech” or “The use of notes was unobtrusive”. That doesn’t help anyone.

·  Select just a couple of things that can be improved, say why, and give advice on how to improve them. Remember that you are advising the speaker on how to improve his manner of performance, not his personality. Maybe there were many more problem areas, but you cannot expect anyone to take in a whole catalogue. Two points for improvement are enough. 

Omit the obvious. Omit the trivial. Resist the powerful temptation to show how clever you are or how nice or nasty you can be.

And (unless you are evaluating a topic) remember to state whether the speaker should do this assignment again or progress to the next one in the Guide. 

Reference: ASC Speakers Guide section D1.